The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) is a state-supervised, county-administered system that provides oversight of programs that affect nearly 3 million of California’s most vulnerable residents—foster children and youth, children and families receiving aid through the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs), adults and elderly in licensed community care facilities and aged, blind and disabled recipients requiring in-home supportive services or Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI-SSP) assistance. The department is under the umbrella of the Health and Human Services Agency. It has around 4,200 employees located in 51 offices throughout the state, and 58 county welfare departments, offices and community-based organizations.

What We Do (CDSS website) 

The CDSS had its humble origins as the six-member Board of Charities and Corrections in 1903. The board reported on 12 charitable and correctional institutions, 60 county hospitals and charity houses, 57 county jails, and 300 city and town jails and lock-ups. Over the years, the board sought to improve the welfare of children and adults, including   removal of children from orphan asylums to good homes; state enforcement of child support payments by parents; enforcement of compulsory school attendance in order to reduce juvenile crime; and enforcement of child labor laws. It was also an early advocate (1916) of indeterminate sentencing for convicted criminals and revision of the penal code to emphasize corrective treatment rather than punishment.

However, in one overzealous and misguided attempt at social responsibility, the board took leadership in the turn-of-the-century national movement of forced sterilization. “No other one measure means so much to those who are struggling with the problem of the mental defective,” observed the board in its 1917 defense of sterilization policies. Under California's 1909 sterilization law, at least 20,000 Californians in state hospitals and prisons had been involuntarily sterilized by 1964. California “consistently outdistanced every other state” in terms of the number of eugenic sterilizations. Early on, men were as likely to be sterilized as women, but by the 1940s women were almost the total focus.

Sterilization was part of the “scientific” movement called eugenics, which aims to improve the genetic composition of a population by manipulating its genetic composition. The movement, which had its first early successes in the United States, became a centerpiece of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi political movement in Germany. Three notables in the eugenics movement were Board of Corrections and Charities members: Rabbi Martin Meyer (1911-1920); Rabbi Rudolph Coffee (a founding member of the Human Betterment Foundation and a board member from 1924-1931), and John Randolph Haynes, M.D. and Ph.D. (1912-1923).

In 1973, the California Legislature enacted the Community Care Facilities Act to be administered by the Department of Health. The act was intended to establish a system of community care separate from health care. It required the Department of Health in a joint effort with medical providers to establish new regulations for licensing non-medical out-of-home care facilities.

In 1978, the Legislature established the Department of Social Services within the Health and Welfare Agency along with the departments of Health Care Services, Mental Health, Developmental Services, Alcohol and Drug Programs, and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The Department of Health Services was reorganized. The Community Care Licensing (CCL) Program and several programs from the former Department of Benefits Payments were combined to form the current Department of Social Services.

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics (by Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race)

The Frightening Agenda of the American Eugenics Movement (by Professor Tony Platt) 

CDSS offers employment services, cash aid, food services, residential care, day care, in-home care, adoption, foster care services, refugee services and more. It is broken into roughly seven divisions:

Adult Program Division provides oversight of programs providing services to the aged, blinded and disabled. Programs include the In-Home Supportive Services like house cleaning, meal preparation, laundry, grocery shopping, personal care services, accompaniment to medical appointments, and protective supervision for the mentally impaired. The Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants, which is 100% state-funded, provides monthly cash benefits to the elderly, blind and disabled noncitizens ineligible for Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment. The California Veterans Cash Benefit is another state-funded program.

Children and Family Services Division handles adoptions, foster care, children’s programs and child welfare services. Programs include the Safely Surrendered Baby campaign that facilitates fire stations being sites of endangered-infant drop-offs. There are a number of foster care programs. The Independent Living Program provides training, services and programs to assist current and former foster youth achieve self-sufficiency prior to and after leaving the system. The Supportive Transitional Emancipation Program and Transitional Housing Placement Program provide community care licensed placement opportunities for youth in foster care. Kinship Care and Specialized Care are a few others among the many foster care programs.

Community Care Licensing Division provides oversight and enforcement for more than 90,000 facilities statewide. It oversees Child Care Facilities, Children’s Residential Facilities, Adult and Elderly Facilities and Special Agencies (adoption and foster agencies).

Disability Determination Service Division determines the medical eligibility of disabled California residents seeking benefits.

Human Rights and Community Services Division ensures compliance with all state and federal civil rights mandates governing equal access to benefits and services. It includes the Civil Rights Bureau, Services to the Blind and Deaf Access.

State Hearings Division resolves disputes of applicants and recipients of public services throughout the hearing process.

Welfare to Work Division is California’s version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It includes CalWORKs, which gives cash aid and services to eligible needy families.

About (CDSS website)

Services (CDSS website)

CDSS Divisions (CDSS website)

Programs and Services (CDSS brochure) (pdf)

Sixty percent of the Department of Social Service’s $19.7 billion budget goes to welfare programs, 34% goes to social services and licensing, 4% goes to Title IV-E Waiver, and 2% goes to disability evaluation and other services. The department’s administration costs are distributed across and reimbursed by county agencies. The department receives about 46% of its funding from the state’s General Fund, 36% from the Federal Trust Fund and 17% from reimbursements.

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Lightbourne Salary

Despite massive cuts to programs for the poor run by the Department of Social Services, its director is one of the highest-paid bureaucrats, if not the highest, in California state government. Will Lightbourne, who was hired in April 2011, makes more than $340,000 a year in salary and benefits because of an unusual hiring deal he struck with Governor Jerry Brown in 2011. He will make more money than Brown, the attorney general or the head of the Highway Patrol system . . . and $51,000 more than his predecessor. On top of that, he’ll get a monthly $400 car allowance, although lawmakers and other state officials have been stripped of theirs.

Lightbourne, who spent 11 years as director of the Santa Clara County Social Service Agency, will continue to receive his present $216,611 base pay and benefits from the county while the state reimburses it for the full amount. This allows Lightbourne to skate by the state law that sets pay for the post at $165,000; benefits generally add 30% to a total compensation package. He will make about $120,000 more than if he had been hired under normal procedures.

Republican state Senator Doug LaMalfa immediately asked the Legislative Counsel to render an opinion on whether the appointment violated state laws on executive pay.  “For people out there to see that they’re paid, basically about a third of a million dollars per year, which is about double of what the governor receives, I can’t believe that he has more responsibility or burden on his shoulders than the governor of California.”

The official who authorized the pay package, California Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley, said Lightbourne's compensation “is worth it to the people of California” because he has the “skills and expertise for the challenges we face.” Others say it’s hazard pay for the brutal hacking of social programs the department faces in the near future. “He’s being paid $50,000 more than the maximum allowed by state law,” said Republican Assemblyman Brian Jones. “The average grant for children in California on welfare is $500 a month. So that’s 100 months worth per year of grants that are now not going to be able to go to the children.”

Democratic Assemblyman Jim Beall defended the hiring. “State salaries are a lot less than most of the local government salaries, so, unfortunately, you get what you pay for.  If you want somebody that's got a different perspective, you're going to have to pay him a little more, and $216,000 isn't that much more—he'll be leaps and bounds better than what I've seen up here in Sacramento.”

Big Payday for Welfare Czar (by Mike Luery, CBS Sacramento)

California's Social Services Chief Wins Lucrative Pay Deal (by Shane Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times)

Santa Clara County's Former Social Services Director Comes Under Fire (by Karen de Sá, San Jose Mercury News)

LaMalfa Questions Legality of Brown Appointee's Pay (KNCO.com)

Child Welfare Falls Short

Over the years there have been numerous accounts of death, neglect or abuse in foster homes, many stemming from unchecked backgrounds of foster parents. Some parents had previous abuse records while others looked to the system as a means of income. Many attribute the problems to the high volume of foster care cases coupled with the lack of foster care case workers. Consequently, the foster care system has become a last resort effort in child welfare. In many cases, if the parents fail to adequately provide for their children, social services will place children in the temporary care of foster parents or look to relatives.

The kinship care system was formulated in hopes of providing better care for foster children. Most children are placed in temporary foster care due to neglect or abuse. About 57% of youth leaving the system in 2009-2010 were reunified with their birth parents or primary caregivers. Others were placed in licensed non-relative foster homes or residing with kin.

In 2009, in an attempt to reduce the state’s deficit, the CDSS tried to cut reimbursements for foster care group homes by 10%. But a federal judge ruled in June 2011 that the cuts violate the Child Welfare Act.

In October 2011, the State Auditor released a report highly critical of the Department of Social Services’ handling of child welfare cases. Particular criticism was aimed at the failure to investigate deaths due to child abuse and the finding of registered sex offenders living or working in foster care homes.

The auditors did a quick study that it had recommended be conducted back in an earlier 2008 audit, but which the department had ignored. “When we compared the addresses of individuals in the sex offender registry with addresses of Social Services’ and counties’ licensed facilities and foster homes, we found over 1,000 address matches, nearly 600 of which are considered to be high risk.”

The department responded that the data used by the auditor was outdated, but in a subsequent investigation suspended the licenses of eight facilities and 31 people either living or working in licensed facilities were ordered to stay away.

The audit only covered three counties in Northern California. Los Angeles County, where nearly half the state’s foster children reside, refused to turn over data. A separate audit of that county was scheduled to be released in January 2012.

Foster Care in California Statistics (pdf)

Death in Foster Care (Voices of Children Alliance)

The Crisis of Foster Care (by Timothy Roche, TIME Magazine)

State Budget Cuts Will Devastate Foster Kids, California Group Says (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)

Judge Blocks California's Cuts to Foster System (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)

Children in Foster Care Study (The Future of Children Journal)

State Audit: Welfare Systems Fail to Protect Abused, Neglected Kids (by Bernice Yeung, California Watch)

1,000 Calif. State Facilities Match Sex Offenders' Addresses (by Michael Martinez. CNN)

Child Welfare Services: California Can and Must Provide Better Protection and Support for Abused and Neglected Children (State Auditor) (pdf)

2009 California Fatality and Near Fatality Annual Report (Department of Social Services) (pdf)

Saenz v. Roe

In 1992, California enacted a statute limiting the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived or relocated residents. In a move to reduce the state welfare budget, which was at the time the sixth largest in the U.S., the Legislature enacted a statute to limit new residents in their first year in California to the benefits they would have received in their former state of residence. For the state to comply with the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was in effect from 1935 to 1996, it needed the approval of the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to qualify for federal reimbursement. In October, HHS Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan granted his approval.

In December, three California residents eligible for AFDC benefits filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new residency requirement citing the “right to travel.” A U.S. District Court judge temporarily forbade the state from enforcing the statute. The state petitioned for review by the U.S. Supreme Court and in a separate proceeding HHS Secretary Sullivan’s approval of the statute was rendered invalid.

The state argued that the statute did not penalize the right to travel because new arrivals were still given benefits during their first year of residence. Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the majority found that the right to travel included more than the citizen’s right to enter and leave a state, it also included the rights to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens of the state as stated in the 14^th Amendment. Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented, saying that although they are related, the right to become a citizen of another state was not the same as the right to travel. He claimed that becoming a citizen of another state required both physical presence within the state and a subjective intent to remain there. Since residency requirements pertain to the latter factor of citizenship, Rehnquist reasoned they should not be unconstitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on the grounds that he felt the majority attributed a meaning to the 14^th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause that its framers did not. The court found that the statute violates the Constitution.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act into law, creating the TANF program and this permitted states to limit aid to people who had been residents for less than a year without the need of approval from federal authorities.

Saenz v. Roe (Lexis Nexis)

Saenz v. Roe Dissent (Cornell University Law School)

Reducing the State Deficit

Governor Jerry Brown proposed a number of Department of Social Services reductions for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The CalWORKs program grants would be reduced, as well as earned income. The Cal-Learn Program would be suspended to save $43.6 million. In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) would also be reduced. The Services for Recipients Without Medical Certification program and state funding for IHSS advisory committees would be eliminated, and the Community First Choice Option and Pilot Project for Medication Dispensing Machines would be implemented, resulting in a decrease of $336.9 million. There would also be a caseload reduction of $29.5 million. The Supplemental Security Income – State Supplementary Payment program would see a reduction in grants for individuals of $178.4 million.

The Continuing Care Advisory Committee (CCAC) advises the department on matters in the continuing care industry. It consists of 11 members who are appointed based on interest and expertise. In order to help relieve the state’s deficit, Governor Brown proposed  elimination of the CCAC.

Reducing State Government (Ebudget) (pdf)

Proposed 2011-12 Budget May Revision (Ebudget) (pdf)

Misspent Welfare Money

Nearly $5 million in cash benefits issued in California and meant to help struggling families feed and clothe their children was spent or withdrawn from ATMs at casinos and poker rooms between January 2007 and May 2010. Around $1.8 million alone was withdrawn on the floor of casinos by welfare recipients using state-issued debit cards between October 2009 and May 2010. After the Los Angeles Times reported these numbers, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered the Department of Social Services to ensure that CalWORKs debit cards are not used in gambling establishments.

By January 2011, the department eliminated ATM access by the cards in casinos, card rooms, bail bonds businesses, cannabis shops, cruise ships, gun and ammunition stores, psychic readers, bingo halls, race tracks, tattoo and piercing shops, spa and massage salons, gun and ammunition stores and strip clubs.  And for good measure, the department deactivated ATMs and point-of-sale devices at approximately 1,575 liquor stores and 550 tobacco shops not authorized by the USDA to accept CalFresh benefits.  Lawmakers quickly took up legislation to write the ban into law.

Is it time to get tough on welfare abuse?

You Betcha

Critics of big government, and social programs in particular, regularly complain about the waste and fraud inherent in the system. And in tough economic times, it’s something we just can’t afford to tolerate. It’s bad for the economy, it’s bad for society and it sends the wrong message to people who would otherwise stay on the straight and narrow if they didn’t see examples of people successfully gaming the system on a regular basis.

Federal regulations already prohibit the use of food stamps to buy alcohol or tobacco because this kind of behavior deprives families of needed resources. Thus, the name of the California legislation proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Henry Pereas to crack down on misuse of welfare money: Putting Food on the Table.

With nearly 1% of the $10.8 billion spent through CalWORKs being withdrawn from places like Las Vegas casinos, many are suspicious of how taxpayer dollars are being used. Assemblyman Perea said the bill he proposed “takes a modest step to protect the integrity of the system.”

Some Republican lawmakers also demanded that the state go one step further and track down the welfare recipients who withdrew the money and get it back. “I'd say that $227,000 per month is an astounding waste of taxpayer dollars,” said Seth Unger, spokesman for Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick of Solana Beach. “To me it is absolutely clear that the department failed in its duty to provide oversight. We should explore all options to get the money back.”

It’s Much Ado about Nothing

The implication that poor people are blowing the state’s money on frivolous, if not illegal, activities conjures up images of the “welfare queens” made infamous by President Reagan. In his 1976 presidential campaign, the Republican candidate repeatedly told the story of a Chicago woman who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and collected benefits for “four nonexisting deceased husbands,” bilking the government out of  “over $150,000.” The real welfare recipient to whom Reagan referred was actually caught and convicted, and her crime was using two different aliases to collect $8,000. Reagan continued to repeat his version of the story even after the press printed the real one. Reagan never mentioned the race of the woman, but many felt the underlying text of the message was that she was black.

Some critics of the California legislation proposed by Assemblyman Perea think the bill is being used by Republicans as a cheap shot at social programs they don’t like and supported by Democrats who are afraid they will be accused of tolerating waste, fraud and abuse.

Opponents criticized the legislation for making an unreasonable conclusion that people using ATMs at those venues are actually spending the money at those same places. For some people, ATMs in those locations are the only convenient place to get cash. Democratic Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell argued that there is a small amount of “waste, fraud and abuse” but that lawmakers can’t universally “connect the dots.” Many of the people using the casino ATMs might be workers at the casinos or in an area where a strip club has the closest ATM, she said. According to Mitchell, legislators should be concerned about how people are using state-provided money rather than where they are using it.

The Mendacity Index (Washington Monthly)

Assembly Bill 493 Introduction (Assemblyman Perea website)

California Welfare Recipients Withdrew $1.8 million at Casino ATMs Over Eight Months (by Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times)

Assembly Advances Bill to Limit Use of Welfare Funds (by Paresh Dave, Sacramento Bee)

Don't Spend Welfare Assistance in Casinos (Bakersfield Californian editorial)

Assembly Bill 493 (Legislative Information)

California's Limits on Welfare Debit Cards Inspire U.S. Response (by Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times)

John Wagner, 2007-2011

Cliff Allenby, (acting director) 2005-2007

Dennis Boyle, 2004-2005

Rita Saenz, 1999-2004

Eloise Anderson, 1992-1999